Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Hikmat Foundation, filed an appeal against an order by the Ld. CIT(E) rejecting its application for registration. The appeal was filed with a delay of 276 days, for which the assessee provided an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that the interest of justice required the matter to be remanded back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal filed with a significant delay should be admitted, and if the rejection of registration application by CIT(E) requires remand for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
12(1)(ac)(iii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH PATNA
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI
Present for: Appellant by : Shri Pawan Kumar, CA Respondent by : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT Date of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 O R D E R
Per Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member :
This appeal arises from the order passed in Form No. 10AD for registration or approval or rejection or cancellation dated 02.03.2024 by Ld. CIT(E), Patna.
In this case, there is a delay of 276 days in filing of the present appeal. For this, the assessee has filed an affidavit which deserves to be extracted as under:
Considering the reasons given in the said affidavit, we condone the delay and admit this appeal for adjudication.
The present appeal emanates from the order passed by ld. CIT(E) rejecting the application filed in Form No. 10AB seeking registration Hikmat Foundation, AY: 2024-25, under 12(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. In this case, the Ld. CIT(E) has recorded in para 3 of the impugned order that certain details were called for by notice issued from his office and another opportunity was given for presenting the facts on 23.02.2024. It is recorded in the impugned order that the assessee did not make any compliance to this notice. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(E) took an adverse view of the matter and held that in the absence of bank statements, sources of receipts etc. it was not to possible determine whether the assessee was working wholly and exclusively for charitable purposes or not. Thereafter, an adverse order was passed against the assessee.
Aggrieved with this action, the assessee has approached the ITAT and as per ground no. 3 it has been averred that the notices calling for details were never served on the assessee. Before us, the ld. AR pleaded for an opportunity to present the facts before the Ld. CIT(E) and requested that the matter may be remanded back to him.
The ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the impugned order.
We have carefully considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR and have also perused the documents before us. We find that in the interest of justice, this matter deserves to be remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee would do well to present the full facts before the ld. CIT(E) who would consider the details before him and pass a reasoned order as per law. In the light of this, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.